>>3902177>subject distance, focal length and apertureThe fact that this is the thing you choose to focus on shows that your reading comprehension is god awful.
>no f/2 normal crop zoomsI'm sorry, what the fuck are you on about???
Did you stop taking your meds?
>35mm f/2.8 on FF weighs 80gDid you pull that number out of your ass?
I can tell you for a fact that the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary for MFT weighs 395g.
I can also tell you that the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary weighs 325g for both Sony E and L-Mount. That's really only a 70g difference.
I took a look for a 35mm f/2.8 prime, and all I could find was the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD Macro - that weighs 210g.
So, your 80g is literally taken out of your ass, I see.
Plus, you deliberately asked for some lenses that don't exist because manufacturers don't make their apertures according to a schizoid poster on /p/.
Pic rel is why equivalence is stupid.
If I meter for a wall with ISO 200, I come to an exposure of 1/125 at f/4.
No matter if I'm using MFT, Nikon One, Sony A7R, Fuji GFX 100, some fuckheug field camera, some Soviet SLR or what have you, the exposure will be the same across all cameras.
Or are you telling me that all exposure meters are wrong?
